Statement of Facts.

said bonds, the annual revenue and all the taxable property of said West Point Precinct is pledged.

"In testimony whereof, the board of county commissioners of Cuming County, State of Nebraska, have caused this bond to be signed on behalf of West Point Precinct, in the county of Cuming, and State of Nebraska, by its chairman, attested by its clerk, who has affixed thereto the seal of the said county, at the clerk's office in West Point, in the said county, this first day of July,

"The West Point Precinct, Cuming County, State of Nebraska, will pay the bearer twenty-five dollars, at the National Park Bank, in the city of New York, on the first day of July, 1877, on bond. No. 43.

"No. 43.

THOMAS ROEH, Clerk."

The coupons fell due as follows: 16 on July 1st, 1877, 43 on January 1st, 1878, 43 on July 1st, 1878, 43 on January 1st, 1879, and 43 on July 1st, 1879. The petition alleges that on the 1st of September, 1875, the defendant made, executed and delivered the coupons, each of them being signed by the clerk of the county, for semi-annual interest on the bond; and that the bonds are special bonds of the county, issued by its board of county commissioners, in behalf of West Point Precinct, a voting district within and a part of the county, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 35, General Statutes of Nebraska. It sets out a copy of one of the bonds and copies of five of the coupons. It avers that on the 1st of January, 1876, the plaintiff became the purchaser of all the coupons, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, before they became due and payable; that the only works of internal improvement of a public nature, for which the bonds were so issued to said company, "were the improvement of the water-power of the said Elkhorn River, for the purpose of propelling public grist-mills" in said precinct in said county; that the improving of said water

Opinion of the Court.

power for said purpose "would and did render the water-power of said river available and useful for propelling other works of internal improvement of a public nature, which were or thereafter might be constructed and located upon the said river in said precinct;" that, at the time of the sale and delivery of the bonds to the plaintiff, he had "no notice or knowledge of any other works of internal improvement of a public nature in aid of which the said bonds were so issued, except the said works specially mentioned and described in said bonds, viz., the improvement of the water-power of the Elkhorn River for the purpose of propelling public grist-mills" in said precinct; that the bonds and their attached coupons were "issued and negotiated by the defendant under and by virtue of a majority vote of the qualified voters of West Point Precinct, a local subdivision of said Cuming County, and in pursuance" of said act of February 15th, 1869; and that "the improvement of the water-power of the Elkhorn River, to aid which said bonds. were issued and negotiated, consisted in constructing a canal for water-power purposes in said West Point Precinct."

The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer, to which ruling the plaintiff excepted, and, as he refused to amend the petition, the court dismissed the action and entered a judgment for the defendant, for costs, and the plaintiff excepted to the judgment. To review the judgment the plaintiff sued out a writ of error.

Mr. Walter C. Larned for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Uriah Bruner and Mr. R. F. Stevenson for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. He stated the facts in the foregoing language, and continued: It is urged against the right of the plaintiff to recover, that in the bonds and coupons the West Point Precinct promises to pay, and so the obligations are not those of the defendant and it cannot be sued on them. This question was decided by this court in Davenport v. County of Dodge, 105 U. S. 237, in regard to precinct bonds issued under the same statute, and it was held that a suit against the county on coupons cut from

Opinion of the Court.

special bonds issued by the county commissioners for the precinct was a proper suit.

It is also contended that the statute (sec. 7) required that precinct bonds should be issued as special county bonds for the precinct, by the county commissioners, and did not authorize the chairman of the board and its clerk to issue the bonds; that the county commissioners could not delegate their authority to sign and issue the bonds to any one else, or to one of their number; and that precinct bonds signed by one of the county commissioners, as chairman, and attested by the clerk of the board, and coupons signed by some one as clerk, have no validity. We see no force in these objections. The bonds bear the seal of the county and purport to be issued by the board of county commissioners, on behalf of the precinct. The bond states that the board, in testimony of the statements in the bond, has caused the bond to be signed on behalf of the precinct. by the chairman of the board, and to be attested by the clerk of the board (who appears, by the petition, to have been the clerk of the county), and that such clerk has affixed thereto the seal of the county. This was a sufficient compliance with the statute. The commissioners, by statute, constituted "a board." That was their official designation, when meeting to perform any duties with which they were charged. Gen. Stat. of 1873, chap. 13, secs. 7, 14, pp. 233, 234. The attestation of the bonds by the signatures of the chairman and the clerk of the board, and the county seal, was proper. It was not necessary that all the commissioners should sign the bonds. What was done was not an issuing of the bonds by the chairman and clerk. The coupons, in the form in which they were issued, annexed to the bond, were adopted as coupons, by the statement in the body. of the bond, and the question as to any one of them, when detached, is only one of genuineness and identity. The bonds are special bonds for the precinct, and contain a sufficient statement showing their special nature, that is, that they are special bonds for the precinct.

It is also objected that the bonds state that they are issued under the act of 1869, to aid the company in improving the water-power of the river for the purpose of propelling public

Opinion of the Court.

grist-mills "and other works of internal improvement of a public nature" in the precinct; and that the latter part of the statement is indefinite, and the other works to be aided or improved, or propelled, should be described or identified, so that it may be seen they were works of internal improvement, within the statute, and also because the proposition voted on must, in order to be a lawful one, have stated what the specific "other works were. It is a sufficient answer to this objection to say, that the petition states, and the demurrer admits, that the only work of internal improvement of a public nature for which the bonds were issued to the company, was the improvement of the water-power of the Elkhorn River for the purpose of propelling public grist-mills in the precinct; that the improving of such water-power for that purpose rendered it available and useful for propelling other works of internal improvement of a public nature, which were or thereafter might be constructed and located on that river in that precinct; that the improvement of the water-power of that river, to aid which the bonds were issued and negotiated, consisted in constructing a canal for water-power purposes in the precinct; and that the bonds and their attached coupons were issued and negotiated under and by virtue of a majority vote of the qualified voters of the precinct, and in pursuance of the act. Thus, there is a distinct statement as well as an admission, that no work of internal improvement was covered by the vote or the issue of the bonds, other than the one of improving such water-power for the purpose of propelling public grist-mills in the precinct. The statement in the bonds in regard to propelling other works of internal improvement of a public nature in the precinct, is explained by the allegation in the petition that the improving of the water-power for the purpose stated. rendered it available to propel other works of internal improvement of a public nature, then existing, or which might be constructed on the river within the bounds of the precinct. But this was an incidental result, and aside from the only work in aid of which, or purpose for which, the bonds were issued, as existing, or as notified to, or known by, the plaintiff, at the time of the sale and delivery of the bonds to him.

VOL. CXI-24

Opinion of the Court.

It is also objected that improving the water-power of the river, by constructing a canal for water-power purposes, is merely digging a mill race, and that the doing so, for the purpose of propelling a public grist-mill in the precinct, is not constructing a work of internal improvement, within the statute. We are not referred to any decision of the highest court of Nebraska, made before the plaintiff became, on January 1st, 1876, the bona fide owner of these coupons, or even since, holding in accordance with the contention of the defendant.

In Osborne v. County of Adams, 106 U. S. 181, this court decided, in November, 1882, that, under the same statute that is in question here, bonds issued to aid in the construction of a steam grist-mill were not issued to aid in the construction of a work of internal improvement. There was a suggestion in the opinion in that case, that the statute did not cover the construction of any kind of grist-mill as a work, of internal improvement. During the same term a petition for rehearing was filed, and the attention of the court was called to the case of Traver v. Merrick County, 14 Neb. 327, in which the Supreme Court of Nebraska had held, at its January Term, 1883, that county bonds issued by county commissioners, under the act of 1869, as a loan to an individual to aid in building a publie grist-mill and water-power in the county, were valid. But this court adhered to its view that the act did not cover the construction of a steam grist-mill, and denied the rehearing. Osborne v. Adams County, 109 U. S. 1.

In Union Pacific Railroad v. Commissioners, 4 Neb. 450, it was held, in 1876, that a public wagon bridge, over the Platte River, as an extension of a public highway, was a work of internal improvement, under the act of 1869, being a work from the construction of which benefits were to be derived by the public. But the court said that no authority existed to aid a merely private enterprise. Sec, also, United States v. Dodge County, 110 U. S. 156.

In The State v. Thorne, 9 Neb. 458, 460, in 1880, it was suggested that works of internal improvement, under the act, might include railroads, turnpikes, canals, and numerous other enterprises, not objects of private concern purely